On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

> Thus spake Tomasz Luchowski
> > Does anyone use uucp these days? I have never used it, and I like
> > the idea of removing obsolete (at least from my point of view) software.
>
> I still use UUCP.  It is still an excellent mechanism for store and forward
> type file transfers.  I even use it to transfer PAW information with a
> major bank up here.  Lots of people use it over TCP/IP to transfer news.
> There is definitely nothing obsolete about UUCP.
>
> However, if it was changed to a package I could still survive.  Does it
> use a lot of resources in the system?  I would hate to see us having to
> go into packages every time we needed to use a less used utility.  Disk
> space is cheap these days.

I think the issue is not the footprint on the repository's server --
moving it to pkgsrc would end up requiring a bigger footprint, anyway,
because you'd still have the history in basesrc, plus you'd add a
tarball to distfiles. The issue is that folks don't want to build and
install it by default on their own systems (ditto for postfix, and a
few other things).

There are lots of ways to accomplish that without moving the sources.
We could simply provide a way to specify certain directories that
aren't to be descended into. (See the discussion about EXCLUDE_SUBDIRS
last August/September on tech-misc.)

Another way would be to create top level targets that only build and
package a portion of the tree, like "make build-base build-mailers
build-compilers package-base package-mailers package-compilers". "make
build" and especially "make release" should do them all by default,
but again, folks would want an easy way to specify the ones they want.

Frederick